find_clauses

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that matching uses an Arabic-aware folded copy, results are ranked, and each result lists matched terms for auditability. This meaningfully explains how the tool behaves beyond just 'find clauses'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a bit long but front-loaded with the core purpose. The supported-concept list and matching/ranking details all earn their place, though the concept list duplicates the schema enum. No filler or vague phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains return behavior: real clause text, anchors, ranked results, and matched terms. One minor gap is that it does not state what happens if neither concept nor query is provided, even though the schema only requires path.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that query can substitute for or complement concept, that matching is Arabic-aware, and that results are ranked with matched terms. This goes beyond simple parameter names and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: find clauses by legal concept and return their real text with anchors. It also distinguishes itself from summary-like tools by explicitly saying the model reviews actual wording instead of a summary, and the supported concept list makes the scope highly concrete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need clauses matching a legal concept or free-text query. It also explains how query can be used alone or alongside concept. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.